On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:12:20 +1030, Mark Smith said: > going to be enough. I'm not sure why the 32 bit address size was > persisted with at that point - maybe it was because there would be > significant performance loss in handling addresses greater than what > was probably the most common host word size at the time.
I've always been surprised that the early preponderance of 36-bit machines (DEC -10/20, Multics boxes) didn't stick us with a 36 bit address. That would have bought us a few more decades. ;)
pgpwccORSHagv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
